Darwin's Illusion

[Subduction Zone]

you didnt read my post, did you?

I did when it was written. You are splitting hairs because you know that you are wrong again.

 

[leroy]

But he has been. Your inability to understand this is your problem. This has been shown to you many times.. I know that I have both linked a YouTube video and the paper that it was based upon more than onnce.

Again, did you read my post? Your reply seems unrelated to what I said

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again, did you read my post? Your reply seems unrelated to what I said

And your inability to understand is no longer my problem.

 

[leroy]

I did when it was written. You are splitting hairs because you know that you are wrong again.

Your response has nothing to do with what I said.

I said: Wikipedia summaries many objections and many different cases against IC (implying that I don’t have time to address everything)

You reply: but Wikipedia is more than enough

Do you realize how your reply is unrelated to my post?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your response has nothing to do with what I said.

I said: Wikipedia summaries many objections and many different cases against IC (implying that I don’t have time to address everything)

You reply: but Wikipedia is more than enough

Do you realize how your reply is unrelated to my post?

Which post are you nattering about now? I thought we were done with that one.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

My claim is the Behe has not been refuted

OK, but that's incorrect as worded. I suspect you mean that a specific claim such as that IC may exist has not been refuted. His claim of irreducible complexity in a mousetrap was successfully refuted.

My claim is not that IC excist........ but rather that we dont know and that the proposed examples have not been refuted.

I agree with the first half of that, but disagree with the second claim. I've also told you that we don't need to know, that is, we don't need to refute the claim that IC might exist. Of course it might if life were intelligently designed. But so what?

You are the one (it seems to me) that is claiming that Behe has been refuted (shown to be wrong)

I'm one of many, including @Subduction Zone on this thread.

I apologize for wrongly accusing you for making a strawman btw

Thank you, but no need. That was just a mistake. Where you owe me an apology is for your accusations I lied, but I'm fine without it and I'm not really interested in a remorseless apology, anyway.

Spoiler: digression

Do you know what remorse is and how it differs from regret? Regret is a larger category of which remorse is a subset. Regret just means that one wishes things had been otherwise, and that includes things he doesn't hold himself responsible for (I regret the premature passing of Jerry Garcia) as well as things which he is responsible for but only regrets because they worked out badly for him. I'll bet Trump regrets being indicted for crimes, but feels no remorse. An "apology" without remorse is not considered an apology.

To expand further, there's a window of opportunity to express remorse after which such expression shouldn't be considered sincere. I'm thinking of an acquaintance who said to me - an American critic of America who doesn't vote any longer - in a group email a few years ago, that I don't have the right to "whine" if I don't vote. Remorse leads to an apology within a day or two or maybe a week. His apology came two years later when we began seeing one another again each week in our bridge club. It meant nothing to me, and my feelings about him haven't changed. I don't forgive absent remorse. I may be willing to overlook a slight if it serves me, but a remorseless apology doesn't change my opinion of such a person.

 

[shunyadragon]

I missed the articles on the eye because you were quoting someone else…

But you failed, none of the articles even tries to explain which mutations and in which genes had to occur to go form what stage to another.

You did not read the material, because they do describe the genetic history of the eye and specifically the gene of the light-sensitive cell gene that is the foundation gene of the evolution of all primitive and complex eyes in the history of life.

 

[leroy]

OK, but that's incorrect as worded. I suspect you mean that a specific claim such as that IC may exist has not been refuted. His claim of irreducible complexity in a mousetrap was successfully refuted.

I woudl disagree with that (in red) …… I am assuming that this is a point of disagreement between you and I

Thank you, but no need. That was just a mistake. Where you owe me an apology is for your accusations I lied, but I'm fine without it and I'm not really interested in a remorseless apology, anyway.

If you show that you were not lying (the same way you showed that you were not making a strawman) you will get the apology

 

[leroy]

You did not read the material, because they do describe the genetic history of the eye and specifically the gene of the light-sensitive cell gene that is the foundation gene of the evolution of all primitive and complex eyes in the history of life.

If you think any of the articles refutes anything that I said, then quote my words and quote the portion of the article that refutes my claim.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Goodness me! They're morphing now? You think? Lol probably you do...ok...not really provable, hmm? Scientifically or really...your argument is ridiculous but I know you probably believe it.

Did you even spend two seconds considering what was said to you?
It seems not.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If you show that you were not lying (the same way you showed that you were not making a strawman) you will get the apology

Too late. Keep your apology. I wouldn't consider it sincere at this point, and I told you that absent an expression of remorse, it would be meaningless to me.

I woudl disagree with that (in red)

OK, but you are wrong. I don't know why you had trouble with the link I provided demonstrating that - I'm looking at it now - but here's another: A reducibly complex mousetrap

If you have trouble again, do your own search.

I am assuming that this is a point of disagreement between you and I

Yes.

Spoiler: pedantic but helpful grammar digression

And it's you and me, not you and I. A prepositional phrase, which contains an indirect object, takes the objective case (dative in Latin) and appears in the sentence predicate.

Direct objects also appear in predicates and take the objective case, but it is called the accusative case in Latin.

Pronouns in the objective case, whether direct or indirect objects, look like me, myself, yourself, itself, us, them, him/her, and whom, as opposed to nominative case pronouns like I, he/she, they, he/she, and who, which all appear in sentence subjects.

Putting objective pronouns me or myself (for example) in a subject is always wrong, but common, as with Bob and myself went for a walk or Me and him went for a walk. And putting nominative pronouns in a predicate is wrong, as with Jane also went on the walk with Bob and I.

Pronouns like you and it are used in any of these cases (nominative, objective, dative, and accusative) and thus can appear in both subjects and predicates.

 

[shunyadragon]

If you think any of the articles refutes anything that I said, then quote my words and quote the portion of the article that refutes my claim.

I am assuming you are literate, but then I may be mistaken. If you have a reading deficiency you can watch the video which is sufficient. It describes the gene of light-sensitivity cells and the step-by-step evolution of from single cells to clusters to doubling of the gene progressively evolves from the primitive eye to the complex eye. It has also evolved more than once from a light-sensitive cell to form a different complex eye.

 

[leroy]

Too late. Keep your apology. I wouldn't consider it sincere at this point, and I told you that absent an expression of remorse, it would be meaningless to me.

OK, but you are wrong. I don't know why you had trouble with the link I provided demonstrating that - I'm looking at it now - but here's another: A reducibly complex mousetrap

If you have trouble again, do your own search.

Yes.

Does the video has anything relevant that is not already addressed in the article?..... if not I will address the article rather than the video.

----

So basically Behes argument is

1 Mouse Traps are IC

2 Flagellums and other organs are analogous to mouse traps.

The author of the article doesn’t disputes point 2 , it only focuses in refuting point 1.

----

To my view the flaw in the article is evident.

quote from the article

A two-part mousetrap. The next step is to remove the hammer and bend the straight part of the spring to resemble the hammer of the three-part mousetrap. When I made one of these, I didn't straighten any coils, so the gap is just big enough for a mouse's paw or tail. A mouse would have to be pretty unlucky to get caught by this trap. If you could straighten out a few coils of the spring (which is easier said than done--mousetrap springs are pretty tough), you could make a two-part trap that was basically the same as the three-part trap.

A three-part mousetrap. The next step is to remove the hold-down bar and bend the hammer so that one end is resting right at the edge of the platform, holding the hammer up in the cocked position. This is not as good a mousetrap as the four-part mousetrap. It is difficult to put the hammer exactly on the edge of the base, so a mouse-sized jiggle will cause it to snap. When it does snap the hammer hits the floor and sends the trap flying, possibly tossing the mouse to safety. But I've made one by modifying a regular mousetrap, and it snaps just as hard as a five-part trap.

In order to go from a 2 part to a 3 part mousetrap, multiple things have to happen at the same time. (which is Behes main point)

For example you need to add a hammer and you have to modify the position of the string at the same time. (and much more than that) If you don’t have all that simultaneously you won’t have a selectable improvement, but rather something worst that what you started with……….. this is exactly what Behe (and Darwin) claims cannot be done with evolution (random variation + natural selection)



So yes Mouse Traps are IC in the sense that multiple changes have to be done at the same time in order to get an improvement and go from one stage to the next.

So assuming that flagellums are like mousetraps (your article doenst disputes this assumption) the flagellum would also be IC.

To illustrate the concept of irreducibly complexity, Behe uses the common snap mousetrap. "If any one of the components of the mousetrap (the base, hammer, spring, catch, or holding bar) is removed, then the trap does not function

That is true, the mousetrap would not work if you remove one part…………… unless you also modify the other parts……. The point is that many things have to be modified at the same time. Which is impossible (or very unlikely) if random mutations are responsible for these changes.



Keep in mind that in this post

1 I am not saying that Behe has never been resuted, (perhaps yes) but that this particular article doesn’t refutes Behes point.

2 I am not saying that Behe is correct, just that he has not been refuted by this specific article.

Quote honestly I would challenge point 2 in behes argument (in yellow letters above).. but the author of this article decided no to do it


----------------

 

[shunyadragon]

How about theist-evil? Is that OK?

Evil historically the scapegoat of the dark side of the world of the other tribes, and of course the faults of fallible humans caused by the evil of the Fall and Original Sin.

 

[leroy]

I am assuming you are literate, but then I may be mistaken. If you have a reading deficiency you can watch the video which is sufficient. It describes the gene of light-sensitivity cells and the step-by-step evolution of from single cells to clusters to doubling of the gene progressively evolves from the primitive eye to the complex eye. It has also evolved more than once from a light-sensitive cell to form a different complex eye.

The alleged steps are not real steps, none is claimed to be achievable with one mutation



I dont think there is anything in the articles that disgarees with any of my cliams.


but if you disagree then
1 quote my claim
2 quote the portion of the article that refutes my claim

 

[shunyadragon]

Does the video has anything relevant that is not already addressed in the article?..... if not I will address the article rather than the video.

All these sources contain the relevant information explaining the step-by-step genetic evolution of the eye beginning with the light-sensitive cell in primitive organisms that contains the basic primitive gene for the eye and evolved to the complex eye.

It is up to you what you watch or choose to read.

----

So basically Behes argument is

1 Mouse Traps are IC

2 Flagellums and other organs are analogous to mouse traps.

The author of the article doesn’t disputes point 2 , it only focuses in refuting point 1.

----

To my view the flaw in the article is evident.

quote from the article


In order to go from a 2 part to a 3 part mousetrap, multiple things have to happen at the same time. (which is Behes main point)

For example you need to add a hammer and you have to modify the position of the string at the same time. (and much more than that) If you don’t have all that simultaneously you won’t have a selectable improvement, but rather something worst that what you started with……….. this is exactly what Behe (and Darwin) claims cannot be done with evolution (random variation + natural selection)



So yes Mouse Traps are IC in the sense that multiple changes have to be done at the same time in order to get an improvement and go from one stage to the next.

So assuming that flagellums are like mousetraps (your article doenst disputes this assumption) the flagellum would also be IC.


That is true, the mousetrap would not work if you remove one part…………… unless you also modify the other parts……. The point is that many things have to be modified at the same time. Which is impossible (or very unlikely) if random mutations are responsible for these changes.



Keep in mind that in this post

1 I am not saying that Behe has never been resuted, (perhaps yes) but that this particular article doesn’t refutes Behes point.

2 I am not saying that Behe is correct, just that he has not been refuted by this specific article.

Quote honestly I would challenge point 2 in behes argument (in yellow letters above).. but the author of this article decided no to do it


----------------

Does the video has anything relevant that is not already addressed in the article?..... if not I will address the article rather than the video.

----

So basically Behes argument is

1 Mouse Traps are IC

2 Flagellums and other organs are analogous to mouse traps.

The author of the article doesn’t disputes point 2 , it only focuses in refuting point 1.

----

To my view the flaw in the article is evident.

quote from the article


In order to go from a 2 part to a 3 part mousetrap, multiple things have to happen at the same time. (which is Behes main point)

For example you need to add a hammer and you have to modify the position of the string at the same time. (and much more than that) If you don’t have all that simultaneously you won’t have a selectable improvement, but rather something worst that what you started with……….. this is exactly what Behe (and Darwin) claims cannot be done with evolution (random variation + natural selection)



So yes Mouse Traps are IC in the sense that multiple changes have to be done at the same time in order to get an improvement and go from one stage to the next.

So assuming that flagellums are like mousetraps (your article doenst disputes this assumption) the flagellum would also be IC.


That is true, the mousetrap would not work if you remove one part…………… unless you also modify the other parts……. The point is that many things have to be modified at the same time. Which is impossible (or very unlikely) if random mutations are responsible for these changes.

The above is confusing, total nonsense and not relevant to the argument for the natural evolution of complexity in life.

Keep in mind that in this post

1 I am not saying that Behe has never been resuted, (perhaps yes) but that this particular article doesn’t refutes Behes point.

2 I am not saying that Behe is correct, just that he has not been refuted by this specific article.

Quote honestly I would challenge point 2 in behes argument (in yellow letters above).. but the author of this article decided no to do it


----------------

The argument for the natural evolution of complexity has nothing to do with the mechanistic analogy of the mouse traps. It has to with the actual step by step documented evolution of complex structures like the eye and flagellum. A good functional background in organic chemistry and genetics is necessary, not the engineering of mouse traps.

 

[leroy]

The argument for the natural evolution of complexity has nothing to do with the mechanistic analogy of the mouse traps. It has to with the actual step by step documented evolution of complex structures like the eye and flagellum. A good functional background in organic chemistry and genetics is necessary, not the engineering of mouse traps.

I agree, but the author of the article doesn’t seem to agree with you, ……… and neither does @It Aint Necessarily So otherwise he would have not quoted the article.

This is a classical example of

1 hey Leroy this article refutes the argument

2 Leroy then refutes the article

3 ohhh but that article is not relevant

 

[shunyadragon]

The alleged steps are not real steps, none is claimed to be achievable with one mutation.

Evolution takes place over millions of years and NOT achievable with one mutation

I dont think there is anything in the articles that disgarees with any of my cliams.


but if you disagree then
1 quote my claim
2 quote the portion of the article that refutes my claim

The problem is you do not think read or respond coherently to the reference. It is obvious you refuse to read the references or watch the video.

Nothing in the references nor in the sciences of evolution makes any claim that the steps in the process

Why would you think that the evolution of the eye or the flagellum takes place in one mutation? The references describe a step-by-step process of genetic mutations from the light-sensitive cell to the eye.

 

[leroy]

Evolution takes place over millions of years and NOT achievable with one mutation

The problem is you do not think read or respond coherently to the reference. It is obvious you refuse to read the references or watch the video.

Why would you think that the evolution of the eye or the flagellum takes place in one mutation? The references describe a step-by-step process of genetic mutations from the light-sensitive cell to the eye.

That is a straw man, I didn’t say that 1 mutation is (or should be) enough to get a flagellum or an eye.

I said that each individual step has to be 1 mutation (steps and mutations are synomimous in this context)

All you did was change the definition of “step” to mean something different from what I meant originally.

 

[shunyadragon]

I agree, but the author of the article doesn’t seem to agree with you, ……… and neither does @It Aint Necessarily So otherwise he would have not quoted the article.

This is a classical example of

1 hey Leroy this article refutes the argument

2 Leroy then refutes the article

3 ohhh but that article is not relevant

You made no references to the article to refute it. Please cite the references specifically where you refuted them.
Your statements do not reflect the references.

It is obvious you did not read or watch the video.